The Wall Is Dangerous?

Marwan Bishara has a nice little rant about the American and Israeli responses to the International Court of Justice's ruling on the wall Israel is building to separate itself from the Palestinians:

This made the international court's ruling more pertinent and gave the Palestinians renewed hope. The court demanded that Israel cease its breaches of international law, dismantle the wall in its entirety and compensate the residents for all damages.

The Palestinians' sigh of relief turned quickly into a stare of disbelief as they watched American officials dismiss the landmark decision, following Israel's outright rejection of it.

The Bush administration is promising to veto any resolution by the UN Security Council based on the court's opinion. In other words, what the dissenting American judge couldn't do on the international court, where the other 14 members voted in support of the ruling, the United States intends to do in the United Nations.

Such an irresponsible step would alienate what's left of America's friends and allies and render the United States morally responsible for future escalation of bloodshed in Palestine. Washington would also harm Israel's long-term interest by helping Ariel Sharon transform occupation into irreversible apartheid.

So how is this a 'landmark' decision? The court has no jurisdiction. And no mandate. It produced an opinion and a completely expected one at that. That is it. As I mentioned here the court is headed by a Chinese appointee. But if Ms Bishara was so concerned about an 'occupation' perhaps she would care to take the head of this 'holier than thou' court to task. I personally won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Also Ms Bishara's shock that the US would veto any resolution resulting for the courts ruling it a bit much. Her shock that the US responded predictably to the courts ruling (which was never in doubt) is a bit disingenuous. Is she actually surprised by the American response?

And yet throughout her entire article she not once mentions the PLO and any of their responsibilities. How about Hamas? No comment? I totally understand why she would care to ignore such 'little details' as exploding buses and bombed schools but she could at least let up on the 'shock' she felt because some people care to disagree with the courts ruling.

Now I'll be the first one to say that the path that the wall takes may not always be politically wise but why exactly is it that Israel must bare so much grief about the route the wall takes? Israel was invaded three times by hostile forces intent on destroying the country. The Palestinians supported these invasions each and every time. And what price should they pay for their actions?

Or does the new 'international law' say that a country may take part in as many wars of agression as it wishes and expect no negative repercusions if it loses?